Important Judgement on section 80 of CPC

Smt Kavita Devi Alias Kavita … vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The … on 27 February, 2017
W.P. (C) No. 738 of 2017

1. Smt. Kavita Devi @ Kavita Dalmia
2. Smt. Neelam Devi @ Neelam Dalmia
3. Girdhari Lal Dalmia — —- Petitioners
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Giridih — — Respondents

CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioners: M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Anurag Kashyap, Advocates
For the Resp – State: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, GA


Click here to open full Judgement

One thought on “Important Judgement on section 80 of CPC

  1. Refer to the Judgment kavita Devi above . Definitely the Court below must assign reasons so that application of mind while considering injunction application along with the factual background of the case is evident.Hon’ble Court therefore has pointed it out as the reason behind setting aside the impugned order. However I Would like to submit that- Nowhere the applicant has disclosed as to what happened in the original proceeding pending before the circle officer which was ordered to be disposed of in accordance with law in the first round of writ application? This fact is of great relevance because under section 11 of The Bihar (Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act all orders passed under section 6,7&8 are appelable before Collector/Commissioner. In case the order was passed by the C.O. appeal would lie before the competent Authority and not Suit . Similarly Section 16 of the Act bars suit against any order passed under the Act, No where it appears any special ground has been mentioned as to why despite this bar Suit should be entertained in this case.

Leave a Reply to Nalin Kumar Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *